STENBURG v NEEL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 79-94 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 ANDREW J. STENBERG, Plaintiff and Appellant, VS . TODD WILLIAM NEEL, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula. Honorable John Henson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Goldman and Goldman, Missoula, Montana Jon Oldenburg argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana Candace Fetcher argued and Gary Graham argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: Decided: May 29, 1980 July 14, 1980 J()L 14 19% Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. P l a i n t i f f b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r damages f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d i n an a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t . Plaintiff a p p e a l s from a judgment on j u r y v e r d i c t and t h e d e n i a l o f a motion f o r a new t r i a l . T h i s a c t i o n a r o s e o u t o f an A p r i l 1 4 , 1975, t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f North Orange S t r e e t and W e s t Broadway i n M i s s o u l a , Montana. Stenberg, t h e p l a i n t i f f and a p p e l l a n t , was a policeman o p e r a t i n g a p o l i c e p a t r o l c a r a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . P r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t S t e n b e r g had been w r i t i n g a p a r k i n g t i c k e t a t a l o c a t i o n s o u t h of where t h e c o l l i s i o n o c c u r r e d . A t t h a t t i m e h e r e c e i v e d a c a l l i n f o r m i n g him of a d i s t u r b a n c e a t a l o c a l secondhand s t o r e . During t r i a l t h e p l a i n t i f f d e s c r i b e d what happened n e x t , a s f o l l o w s : "When I r e c e i v e d t h e c a l l , I l e f t t h e a r e a of y Second and Hickory and I t u r n e d on m p u r s u i t l i g h t s and m overhead l i g h t s and m s i r e n . y y I t u r n e d northbound on Orange S t r e e t o f f of Second S t r e e t and proceeded a c r o s s t h e b r i d g e . The t r a f f i c w a s q u i t e heavy d u r i n g t h e l u n c h hour and I was p r e t t y much i n t h e flow of t r a f f i c going across the bridge. I g o t t o t h e n o r t h end o f t h e Orange S t r e e t b r i d g e and t h e t r a f f i c was heavy a t a l l t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n s and on the s t r e e t s , s o I had t o go on a c r o s s t h e c e n t e r l i n e t o g e t i n t o the intersection. I entered the intersection, t h e l i g h t was r e d b u t a l l t h e v e h i c l e s w e r e s t o p p e d . I g o t a b o u t half-way t h r o u g h t h e n e x t b l o c k , t r a f f i c was s t o p p e d a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n and a g a i n I had t o go t o t h e l e f t b e c a u s e of t h e c a r s t h a t w e r e stopped. A t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n I e n t e r e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n and t h a t ' s when 1 was i n v o l v e d i n t h e accident." Neel, t h e d e f e n d a n t , was d r i v i n g h i s a u t o m o b i l e e a s t on Broadway when t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d . i n h i s favor. H e had t h e g r e e n l i g h t H i s testimony i n d i c a t e s t h a t he d i d n o t hear t h e s i r e n o r s e e t h e emergency l i g h t s on t h e p a t r o l c a r . O t h e r e y e w i t n e s s e s gave c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y a s t o t h e a u d i b i l i t y and v i s i b i l i t y o f t h e p a t r o l c a r ' s emergency equipment. A s t h e N e e 1 automobile e n t e r e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n i t was h i t midway on t h e p a s s e n g e r s i d e by t h e f r o n t o f t h e patrol car. A s a r e s u l t o f t h e accident Stenberg s u f f e r e d a p i n c h e d n e r v e i n t h e neck. This has r e s u l t e d i n s e v e r e , incapacitating, i n t e r m i t t e n t pain. S t e n b e r g b r o u g h t t h i s s u i t t o r e c o v e r h i s damages a r i s i n g from t h e a c c i d e n t . favor The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s . S t e n b e r g raises f o u r i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y on t h e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y t o a p p l y t h e law o f c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e r a t h e r t h a n t h e law o f c o m p a r a t i v e n e g l i g e n c e ? 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e two of p l a i n t i f f ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s ? 4. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l ? S t e n b e r g c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by g i v i n g c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n no. 1 5 which i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y a s t o s t a n d a r d of c a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o b o t h p a r t i e s . This i n s t r u c t i o n reads : "The l e g a l s t a n d a r d o f c a r e g o v e r n i n g t h e c o n d u c t o f motor v e h i c l e o p e r a t o r s i s u n v a r y i n g , and rests a l i k e upon a l l d r i v e r s a t a l l t i m e s . The s t a n d a r d o f -r-i-t h e c o n d u c t - - o r d i n a r i l y p r u d e n t ca e s of a n p e r s o n - -e same o r s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; i n i n th -o t h e r words, o r d i n a r y c a r e . Ordinary c a r e , a s t h e t e r m i s used i n t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s means t h a t d e g r e e of c a r e use -- -which a r e a s o n a b l e p r u d e n t p e r s o n would o r e x e r c i s e unaer - - - s i m i l a r circumstances, t h e same o r i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e same o r s i m i l a r m a t t e r s t o a v o i d i n j u r y , and it i m p l i e s t h e u s e o f such c a r e a s i s f a i r l y commensurate w i t h t h e danger t o be a v o i d e d when measured by t h e s t a n d a r d s o f common prudence and e x p e r i e n c e . "And, g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , n e g l i g e n c e i s , t h e r e f o r e , t h e want -- o r d i n a r y c a r e , t h e f a i l u r e t o do what - - of a r e a s o n a b l e and p r u d e n t p e r s o n would o r d i n a r i l y have done under - c i r c u m s t a n c e s - -e s i t u a t i o n , the of t h o r t h e d o i n g what s u c h a p e r s o n under t h e e x i s t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s would n o t have done. "Negligence may a l s o c o n s i s t i n t h e d o i n g of some a c t which t h e law f o r b i d s , o r i n t h e f a i l u r e t o do t h a t which t h e law commands. " I n t h i s a c t i o n any n e g l i g e n c e i s of no consequence u n l e s s i t was a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e i n j u r i e s and (Emphasis damages complained by t h e p l a i n t i f f added. ) ." S t e n b e r g c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was i n c o r r e c t , b e c a u s e of c e r t a i n language which a p p e a r s i n s e c t i o n 61-8-107, MCA. This s t a t u t e g r a n t s c e r t a i n p r i v i l e g e s t o t h e o p e r a t o r s o f a u t h o r i z e d emergency v e h i c l e s . S e c t i o n 61-8-107, MCA, w a s s e t f o r t h i n s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t i n t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n no. 16. The i n s t r u c t i o n r e a d s i n p a r t : "(b) may : The d r i v e r o f a n a u t h o r i z e d emergency v e h i c l e "1. Park o r s t a n d , i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s a c t ; Proceed p a s t a r e d o r s t o p s i g n a l o r s t o p s i g n , "2. b u t o n l y a f t e r s l o w i n g down a s may b e n e c e s s a r y f o r safe operation; Exceed t h e speed l i m i t s s o l o n g a s he does n o t endanger l i f e o r p r o p e r t y ; "3. "4. D i s r e g a r d r e g u l a t i o n s g o v e r n i n g d i r e c t i o n of movement o r t u r n i n g i n s p e c i f i e d d i r e c t i o n s . " ( c ) The exemptions h e r e i n g r a n t e d t o an a u t h o r i z e d emergency v e h i c l e s h a l l a p p l y o n l y when such v e h i c l e i s making u s e of a u d i b l e and v i s u a l s i g n a l s meeting t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of 532-21-132, e x c e p t t h a t an a u t h o r i z e d emergency v e h i c l e o p e r a t e d a s a p o l i c e v e h i c l e need n o t b e equipped w i t h o r d i s p l a y a r e d l i g h t v i s i b l e from i n f r o n t o f t h e v e h i c l e . " ( d ) The f o r e g o i n g p r o v i s i o n s s h a l l n o t r e l i e v e t h e d r i v e r of an a u t h o r i z e d emergency v e h i c l e from t h e -t-t o d r i v e w i t h due r e g a r d f o r t h e s a f e t y of du y -a l l Persons, nor s h a l l such provisions p r o t e c t t h e d r i v e r from. t h e consequences- of h i s r e c k l e s s d i s (Emphasis a d d e d . ) r e g a r d f o r t h e s a f e t y of o t h e r s . " Stenberg contends t h a t t h e s t a t u t e r e l i e v e s t h e d r i v e r of an a u t h o r i z e d emergency v e h i c l e from t h e d u t y o f e x e r c i s i n g o r d i n a r y c a r e , and, i n s t e a d , imposes a lesser d u t y . T h e r e f o r e , S t e n b e r g a r g u e s , i n s t r u c t i o n no. 15 c o n s t i t u t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , b e c a u s e i t imposes a d u t y of o r d i n a r y c a r e upon b o t h p a r t i e s . S e c t i o n 61-8-107, Court. MCA, h a s n o t been c o n s t r u e d by t h i s O t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have, however, had o c c a s i o n t o c o n s t r u e and a p p l y n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l s t a t u t e s . S c h a t z v. C u t l e r ( D . V t 1 9 7 5 ) , 395 F.Supp. D i s t . No. 271. Shawnee T.P. Fire 1 v. Morgan ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 2 2 1 Kan. 271, 559 P.2d 1 1 4 1 . I n Shawnee t h e c o u r t was f a c e d w i t h a f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n v e r y much l i k e t h a t p r e s e n t e d by t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . The c o u r t had t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d u t y imposed by a Kansas s t a t u t e which i s i d e n t i c a l t o s e c t i o n 61-8-107(4), MCA, i n a l l m a t e r i a l respects. The c o u r t s a i d : "Even though t h e u s e o f t h e word ' r e c k l e s s ' s u g g e s t s it w a t h an element o f wantonness, w e b e l i e v e - -s- e - th the i n t e n t of -e l e g i s l a t u r e to c h a r g e - d r i v e r of an - emergency v e h i c l e w i t h due c a r e under t h e e x s t --i n g f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n c l u d e t h e p r i v i l e g e s and immunities g r a n t e d by statute. The t e s t f o r due c a -----r e ( o r due r e g a r d a s u s e d i n t h e s t a t u t e ) , - a p p l i e d - -e d r i v e r o f as t o th a n emergency v e h i c l e , i s whether w i t h- p r i v i l e g e s - the and immunities p r o v i d e d b y s t a t u t e h e a c t e d a s a -559 P.2d a t 1 1 4 7 . reasonably c a r e f u l driver." (Emphasis added.) W e agree. The d r i v e r of a n a u t h o r i z e d emergency v e h i c l e i s c h a r g e d w i t h a d u t y o f due c a r e under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n c l u d e t h e p r i v i l e g e s g r a n t e d by s e c t i o n 61-8-107(2), MCA. In the present case, instruction no. 1 5 s t a t e d , i n e s s e n c e , t h a t a l l d r i v e r s must u s e o r d i n a r y c a r e under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n s t r u c t i o n no. 16 gave t h e p r i v i l e g e s p r o v i d e d t o S t e n b e r g under t h e t e r m s of s e c t i o n 61-8-107. Consequently, t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s c o r r e c t l y presented t h e law t o t h e j u r y . The s t a t u t e may w e l l have been i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t t h e d r i v e r o f a n emergency v e h i c l e , b u t i t d o e s -5- n o t r e l i e v e him of e x e r c i s i n g o r d i n a r y c a r e . N error o was committed by g i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n no. 1 5 . Stenberg next contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y t o a p p l y t h e law of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e r a t h e r t h a n t h e law of c o m p a r a t i v e n e g l i g e n c e . S e c t i o n 27-1-702, comparative negligence. MCA, sets f o r t h Montana's law o f The e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h i s s t a t u t e was J u l y 1, 1975, a l t h o u g h i t was p a s s e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e on March 1 7 , 1975. S e c t i o n 1 - 2 - 2 0 1 ( 1 ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t "Every s t a t u t e , u n l e s s a d i f f e r e n t t i m e i s p r e s c r i b e d t h e r e i n , t a k e s e f f e c t on t h e f i r s t day of J u l y f o l l o w i n g i t s p a s s a g e A d i f f e r e n t t i m e i s n o t p r e s c r i b e d by s e c t i o n and a p p r o v a l . " 27-1-702, MCA. I n Dunham v. S o u t h s i d e N a t i o n a l Bank o f Missoula ( 1 9 7 6 ) , L g.3 3 169 Mont. 466, 548 P.2d M , t h i s C o u r t a f f i r m e d a D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s g r a n t o f summary judgment i n d e f e n d a n t ' s f a v o r . The h o l d i n g was based on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s l a c k o f d u t y t o t h e plaintiff. T h i s C o u r t went on, however, t o c o n s i d e r whether t h e new c o m p a r a t i v e n e g l i g e n c e s t a t u t e was t o b e r e t r o a c t i v e l y applied. This Court s a i d : "The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t i n g summary judqment i s a f f i r m e d , a s i s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e Montana c o m p a r a t i v e n e g l i g e n c e l a w S e c t i o n 58-607.1. R.C.M. 1947 [now 527-1-702, .. .~. , s h a l l n o t a p p l y -o- a -a u s e o f a c t i o n a r i s i n g t -c p r i o r - o -J u l y 1, 1975." 169 Mont. a t 475-76. t - -(Emphasis added. ) m] - -- - - - - These o b s e r v a t i o n s from t h e Dunham c a s e c o n t r o l t h e present case. The D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t e r r i n i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y t o a p p l y t h e law o f c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e r a t h e r t h a n t h e law of c o m p a r a t i v e n e g l i g e n c e . Stenberg next contends t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t p l a i n t i f f ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n no. 1 2 . T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n r e a d , "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t when i n t e r p r e t i n g -6- s t a t u t e s p a r t i c u l a r e x p r e s s i o n s q u a l i f y t h o s e which are general." T h i s was t a k e n from s e c t i o n 1-3-225, MCA. According t o p l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t e n t i o n , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was n e c e s s a r y i n order t h a t t h e jury could properly i n t e r p r e t t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s no. 1 6 and no. 1 8 , which were b o t h t a k e n from two o t h e r Montana s t a t u t e s . S e c t i o n 26-1-201, MCA, s t a t e s t h a t a l l questions of l a w , i n c l u d i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of s t a t u t e s , are t o be d e c i d e d by the court. S e c t i o n 26-1-202, MCA, s t a t e s t h a t questions of f a c t a r e t o be d e c i d e d by t h e j u r y , where t h e t r i a l i s by jury. Consequently, i t was n o t t h e j u r y ' s f u n c t i o n t o i n t e r p r e t any s t a t u t e s , and i t was n o t e r r o r t o r e f u s e p l a i n t i f f ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n no. 1 2 . Stenberg a l s o contends t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t p l a i n t i f f ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n no. 22. T h i s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s t a t e d : i f you f n d f o "You are i n s t r u c t e d - - -i- - r t h e P l a i n t i f f on -e q u e s t i o n of l i a b i l i t y you may t h e n c o n s i d e r th what damages, i f a n y , t h e P l a i n t i f f h a s s u s t a i n e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e enjoyment o f h o b b i e s ; t o what e x t e n t , i f any h i s s a i d i n j u r i e s d i s a b l e d t h e P l a i n t i f f and p r e v e n t e d him from engaging i n h i s u s u a l h o b b i e s such as f i s h i n g , p l a y i n g b a s e b a l l , h u n t i n g , and any o t h e r r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . " (Emphasis added. ) The f a i l u r e t o g i v e t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n does n o t c o n s t i t u t e reversible error. "Reversible e r r o r i s e r r o r materially a f f e c t i n g t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y . Rule 1 4 , M.R.App.Civ.P," Ehni v. N.P. and White P i n e Co. ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 152 Mont. 373, 381, 450 P.2d 882. In the present case t h e j u r y found i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . The j u r y d i d n o t r e a c h t h e i s s u e of damages. Consequently, no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r can be p r e d i c a t e d on damage i n s t r u c t i o n s . S t e n b e r g ' s f i n a l c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n denying h i s motion f o r a n e w t r i a l . In addition t o t h e i s s u e s which have been d i s c u s s e d above, S t e n b e r g a l l e g e d i n h i s motion f o r new t r i a l t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e j u r y t h a t he was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t . Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P. p e r m i t s t h e t r i a l judge t o o r d e r a new t r i a l p u r s u a n t t o motion. This i s a matter within t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i f t h e r e i s an i n s u f f i c i e n c y of evidence t o support a jury v e r d i c t . 1 4 4 Mont. 543, 547, 398 P.2d 960. Campeau v. Lewis ( 1 9 6 5 ) , However, a new t r i a l may n o t be g r a n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t when t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . "The c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i s e x h a u s t e d when i t f i n d s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e record t o support t h e v e r d i c t . " 118 Mont. Hinton v. P e t e r s o n ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 574, 578, 169 P.2d 3 3 3 . I n t h e present case, various witnesses estimated t h a t S t e n b e r g ' s s p e e d immediately p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t w a s between 25 m i l e s p e r hour and 50 m i l e s p e r h o u r . There i s no d i s p u t e t h a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n was busy, t h a t S t e n b e r g had t o d r i v e the police car across the centerline t o get into the inters e c t i o n , and t h a t S t e n b e r g e n t e r e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n a g a i n s t a red l i g h t . While t h e s e a c t i o n s a r e a u t h o r i z e d f o r d r i v e r s of a u t h o r i z e d emergency v e h i c l e s by s e c t i o n 61-8-107, S t e n b e r g was s t i l l r e q u i r e d t o e x e r c i s e f o r t h e s a f e t y of a l l p e r s o n s . . ." ". . . MCA, due r e g a r d There was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e from which a j u r y c o u l d f i n d t h a t S t e n b e r g f a i l e d t o e x e r c i s e t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d of c a r e . The t r i a l c o u r t d i d not a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l . Af f irmed. Chief J u s t i c e We Concur: Justices

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.